I lost all hope for their party when not a single Democratic Senator--including Moynihan, Byrd, Kerrey & Lieberman--voted to impeach him.

You are just a typical Bushie. All I hear about from you guys is the same liany about "what constitution did [so and so] read. This suggests that you believe in the formal, dead constitution of 18th century. Please recognize that we in the U.S. are subject to the vagaries of the living constitution which guarantees everything and nothing simultaneously. The concept of a nation state comes from the dead constitution, the notion of the world state (aka, the Camaroon-Guinea-Angola-Blix-et al state) assures all Americans that their actions will be inoffensive to all (especially ourselves).

so there

Everytime I hear about Clinton or Carter speak out about what Bush is doing, I could scream. They have no class!!!!!!!

Jia - Ah yes the living constitution of Al Gore. It means what I want it to today, it may mean something completely different tomorrow if I change my mind. Constitutions aside, the number 1 priority for the President is to defend the US. The idea that Cameroon should dictate to the US President how to defend the US is ridiculous. Clinton had no problem warning of the danger of Saddam and acting without the UN (i.e. Kosovo) but now that Bush is doing it Clinton is against it, revealing his hypocrisy.

Jia-- Pro-Life when it comes to the Constitution, Pro-Death when it comes to a fetus?



Gotta love the two guiding principles of the contemporary Democrat party.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30980

"jia" is an old friend of mine, and by old, of course, I mean aged.



He is substantially to my right, being, with oj, the only person who has ever argued to me, perfectly seriously, that the US had a moral obligation to attack the USSR. He is also, although it pains me to acknowledge this so publicly, a smart guy and thus would never seriously suggest that our's is a living constitution.



He also once dated Anne Coulter.

Bill Clinton upheld the same Constitution that says in Article VI, clause 2 that "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." By joining the UN, we have bound ourselves to abide by Security Council decisions concerning war and peace (except under certain circumstances that don't apply at the moment).



Clinton should know this clause of the Constitution well, since it's the clause he broke when bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. Bush deserves considerable credit for trying to stick with a treaty that the US has signed.

Peter - Although the Constitution's text is uncharacteristically ambiguous on this point, it is clear that where a treaty conflicts with the Constitution, the treaty is void. The President cannot be relieved of his obligation to protect and defend the Constitution as he sees fit, regardless of our treaty obligations. (Frankly, I also think there's a good argument that any law trumps any treaty.)



I agree with you that we should do our best to abide by the treaties we sign or, if we can't, to repudiate them. Guess where I come down on the UN.



Finally, even if Clinton meant what you suggest, he would still be wrong. Nothing in the UN charter requires that we devolve upon Hans Blix the decision as to how long to give Iraq to disarm in the face of 17 security council resolutions demanding immediate disarmament.

I believe the Supreme Court has held that treaties are equivalent to statutory law, so that a statute contrary to a treaty supersedes the conflicting treaty provisions, or vice versa, the later law operating. But are subordinate to constitutional law. This position has the merit of clarity.

Also, there has to be some question whether a current American government should be held to a treaty it originally signed with significantly different parties than are now signatories of said Charter. It's not dissimilar to situation of the ABM treaty with the Soviet Union.

All this comes across as a classic Clinton version of playing both sides of the fence -- in this case, his wife comes out last week in support of U.S. policy on Iraq, while hubby continues making these sniping pronouncements to placate the left wing of the party faithful.



Then, if the little lady decides to take a run at the White House next year, whichever position turns out to be the correct one in terms of the war on Iraq and its after-effects, it will become the "official" Clinton position from Day 1, and the other remarks either he or she has made will disappear down the memory hole, never to be mentioned again (unless they bump into the wrong journalist, and they do such a good job of media spin that's not likely to happen).

pj-



Whitney v. Robertson
, 124 U.S. 190 (1888):



"... if there be any conflict between the stipulations of the treaty and the requirements of the law, the latter must control. A treaty is primarily a contract between two or more independent nations, and is so regarded by writers on public law. For the infraction of its provisions a remedy must be sought by the injured party through reclamations upon the other. When the stipulations are not self-executing, they can only be enforced pursuant to legislation to carry them into effect, and such legislation is as much subject to modification and repeal by congress as legislation upon any other subject. If the treaty contains stipulations which are self-executing, that is, require no legislation to make them operative, to that extent they have the force and effect of a legislative enactment. Congress may modify such provisions, so far as they bind the United States, or supersede them altogether. By the constitution, a treaty is placed on the same footing, and made of like obligation, with an act of legislation. Both are declared by that instrument to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other. When the two relate to the same subject, the courts will always endeavor to construe them so as to give effect to both, if that can be done without violating the language of either; but, if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other: provided, always, the stipulation of the treaty on the subject is self-executing. If the country with which the treaty is made is dissatisfied with the action of the legislative department, it may present its complaint to the executive head of the government, and take such other measures as it may deem essential for the protection of its interests. The courts can afford no redress."



This isn't the worst possible conclusion, but I'm bothered by the idea that an act of the Senate and President has the same force as an act of the House, Senate and President. Although it would be also be contrary to the constitution to give the House effective veto power over treaties.

David - I'm more bothered that a regulation of the Federal Communications Commission has the same force as an act of the House, Senate, and President.